DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California FILED 07/02/21 04:19 PM BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding R. 20-09-001 Broadband Infrastructure Deployment and to (Filed September 10, 2020) Support Service Providers in the State of California. OPENING COMMENTS OF FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC. (U 1002 C) CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA INC. DBA FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA (U 1024 C) FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST INC. (U 1026 C) ("FRONTIER") ON MAY 28, 2021 ASSIGNED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING Sean P. Beatty BRB Law LLP P.O. Box 70527 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (925) 324-3483 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Frontier July 2, 2021 1 / 4 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Assigned Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling issued on May 28, 2021 (“Ruling”), Frontier California Inc. (U 1002 C), Citizens Telecommunications Company of California Inc. dba Frontier Communications of California (U 1024 C), and Frontier Communications of the Southwest Inc. (U 1026 C) (collectively, “Frontier”) submit these opening comments as specified in the Ruling. II. FRONTIER EMBRACES THE COMMISSION’S GOAL TO MAKE BROADBAND AVAILABLE TO ALL. First and foremost, Frontier does not base its investment decisions on racial considerations. In fact, Frontier is doing its fair share to combat the digital divide in California. As recently as June 3, 2021, Frontier filed 22 applications through the Commission’s CASF Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) Kicker Program.1 Frontier also filed 22 separate projects for CASF adjacent areas. Frontier has nine CASF grant applications from May 2020 still pending approval – all of which focus on rural areas and would deliver fiber to the home (“FTTH”). The grant filings made in June 2021 are also all FTTH projects serving both low- income and very rural areas. Frontier has also completed projects in the very rural areas of Dessert Shores and Lytle Creek with the assistance of CASF funding. Frontier has also received federal Connect America Fund, Phase II (“CAF II”) amounts to assist deployment of broadband to 90,000 customers; that project is nearly completed and has been successful in hitting many areas that were unserved, including tribal areas. Frontier is generally participating in the RDOF, even without the CASF Kicker assistance, and such funding allows Frontier to deploy FTTH, reaching many rural areas of the state. Frontier’s active involvement in federal and state funding programs to bridge the digital divide demonstrates that it shares the Commission’s goal to make broadband available to as many residents of California as possible. Moreover, Frontier holds a franchise under the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (“DIVCA”), the intent of which is to promote broadband and video deployment.2 Frontier provides video over its fiber-based broadband network and has always 1 The RDOF is a federal source of funds for deploying broadband facilities. The Kicker Program was set up by the Commission to leverage the federal RDOF funds. See D.21-01-003 (January 14, 2021). 2 See Cal. Public Util. Code Section 5810. 1 2 / 4 met (and continues to meet) DIVCA’s requirements to ensure no service provider discriminates against any group of potential residential subscribers because of income.3 DIVCA’s legislative history makes clear its anti-discrimination requirement was intended to guard against “redlining,” where a provider chooses to serve “only higher income neighborhoods and thus provide[s] these areas of the state with the advantages of new technologies and competition but den[ies] the same benefits to lower income neighborhoods.”4 Frontier’s compliance demonstrates it does not discriminate. III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD INCLUDE STUDIES THAT IDENTIFY THE SUBSTANTIAL COST IMPEDIMENTS TO UNIVERSAL BROADBAND. Frontier disagrees that the primary cause of any digital divide is racial animus or aversion to customers in rural areas. Instead, the more obvious explanation is economics. To solve the problem of the digital divide, Frontier contends that the Commission should examine existing cost analysis to help understand the magnitude of the issue. The advocacy pieces characterized as “studies” cited in the Ruling do not help the Commission in this regard. One obvious starting point would be to include in the record a study commissioned by and recently delivered to the Commission titled, the California State Broadband Cost Model (“CBCM”) Report dated December 2020.5 Although Frontier has not vetted the CBCM Report and does not necessarily support each and every conclusion in it, the projection that the cost to provide broadband access at 25/3 mbps to every resident of California would be $5.5 billion6 is the kind of information the Commission should be considering in this proceeding. Similarly, to the extent the Commission is focused on access to broadband, not just deployment of fiber, the Commission must consider how to get computing devices in the hands of low-income families, and particularly low-income families in communities of color which the data show have disproportionately lower rates of access. For example, a study published by the Public Policy Institute of California (“PPIC”) in February 2021 noted that household access to computing devices varies across demographic groups, with African American and Latino 3 Id. 4 See AB 2987, Assembly Floor Analysis at 8, Sept. 5, 2006. 5 The CBCM Report is available at the following link: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/UtilitiesIndustries/Communications/FF/C alifornia%20State%20Broadband%20Cost%20Model_December%202020_12142020.pdf. 6 Upgrading the service to 100/10 mbps would up the cost by $1.3 billion to $6.8 billion. 2 3 / 4 households experiencing disproportionately less ownership of computing devices.7 This impediment is not caused by communications carriers, but it is an impediment the Commission must nonetheless address to fulfill its goals regarding access to broadband and bridging the digital divide. Frontier did not conduct an exhaustive review of every possible published study on the current state of and impediments to access to broadband. The point here is that instead of focusing on studies that point the figure at a speculative basis for the existence of the digital divide, the Commission should instead be gathering data and studies to help it identify the measures to take that will bridge that divide. IV. CONCLUSION. Frontier does not base its broadband investment decisions on racial considerations. Furthermore, the anecdotal evidence represented in the reports cited in the Ruling do not provide an adequate basis to move forward with an industry-wide investigation into historical broadband investment decisions. The Commission should instead collaboratively engage with all communications carriers to identify existing financial and informational impediments to broadband access in both rural areas and urban environments, particularly communities of color. Targeting additional public funds to improve access in under-served communities that are expensive to reach or which lack the resources to purchase the necessary devices to take advantage of broadband services would be an obvious starting point. Frontier stands ready to help the Commission identify obstacles and implement solutions. Respectfully submitted on July 2, 2021, at Oakland, California. BRB Law LLP Sean P. Beatty P.O. Box 70527 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (925) 324-3483 Email: [email protected] By /s/ Sean P. Beatty Sean P. Beatty Attorneys for Frontier 7 The PPIC study is available at the following link: https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-digital- divide. 3 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 4 / 4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brief of Amici Curiae of Access Now, Et Al. Case Nos. 2:18-Cv-02684, 2:18-Cv-02660 | I Case 2:18-Cv-02684-JAM-DB Document 68 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 22
    Case 2:18-cv-02684-JAM-DB Document 68 Filed 09/30/20 Page 1 of 22 1 Thomas H. Vidal (State Bar No. 204432) [email protected] 2 Benjamin S. Akley (State Bar No. 278506) [email protected] 3 PRYOR CASHMAN LLP 1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90067-2302 Phone: (310) 556-9608 5 Fax: (310) 556-9670 6 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Access Now, Mozilla Corp, Public Knowledge, 7 New America's Open Technology Institute, and Free Press 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION, CTIA Case No.: 2:18-cv-02684 12 THE WIRELESS ASSOCATION, NCTA – Case No.: 2:18-cv-02660 13 THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, and USTELECOM –THE BRIEF OF ACCESS NOW, MOZILLA 14 BROADBAND ASSOCIATION, CORP, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, NEW AMERICA'S OPEN TECHNOLOGY 15 Plaintiffs, INSTITUTE, AND FREE PRESS AS 16 AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO v. PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTIONS 17 FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as 18 Attorney General of California, Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez 19 Defendant. 20 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 21 22 Plaintiff, 23 v. 24 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; GAVIN C. 25 NEWSOM, Governor of California, in his Official Capacity, and XAVIER BECERRA, 26 Attorney General of California, in his Official 27 Capacity, 28 Defendants. Brief of Amici Curiae of Access Now, et al. Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02684, 2:18-cv-02660 | i Case 2:18-cv-02684-JAM-DB Document 68 Filed 09/30/20 Page 2 of 22 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 I.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT ABOUT FRONTIER Collection of Facts
    10/28/2020 REPORT ABOUT FRONTIER Collection of Facts CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION REPORT ABOUT FRONTIER 10/28/2020 Contents Surcharge Reporting and Remittances for Public Purpose Programs................................................................................. 2 Payment of Fines related to General Order 133-D ............................................................................................................. 2 Payment of Annual Fees as a Video Franchise Holder ........................................................................................................ 2 Order Instituting Investigation 14-05-012 related to Intrastate Rural Call Completion ..................................................... 2 Order Instituting Investigation 19-12-009 related to Frontier’s Outages ........................................................................... 2 Complaints Received by the CPUC’s Consumer Affairs Branch .......................................................................................... 3 Complaint Category: Billing ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Complaint Category: Related to Internet or VoIP services ............................................................................................. 4 Complaint Category: Service ........................................................................................................................................... 4
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of Frontier Communications Corporation, Transf
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Frontier Communications Corporation, ) Transferor ) ) and ) WC Docket No. 19-_____________ ) Northwest Fiber, LLC, ) IB File No. ITC-T/C-2019________ Transferee ) ) Application for Consent to Partially Assign ) and Transfer Control of Domestic and ) International Authorizations Pursuant to ) Section 214 of the Communications Act of ) 1934, As Amended, and Sections 63.04, 63.18 ) and 63.24 of the Commission’s Rules. ) CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION FOR THE PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL SECTION 214 AUTHORIZATIONS Pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”),1 and Sections 63.04, 63.18 and 63.24 of the Commission’s rules,2 Frontier Communications Corporation (“Frontier” or “Transferor”) and Northwest Fiber, LLC (“Northwest Fiber” or “Transferee”) (collectively, the “Applicants”) request Commission consent to: (1) transfer control of certain domestic and international Section 214 authorizations held by Frontier’s wholly owned subsidiaries (i) Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho (“Frontier Idaho”), (ii) Citizens Telecommunications Company of Montana (“Frontier Montana”), 1 47 U.S.C. § 214. 2 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.04, 63.18 and 63.24. (iii) Citizens Telecommunications Company of Oregon (“Frontier Oregon”) and (iv) Frontier Communications Northwest Inc. (“Frontier Northwest”) ((i) through (iv) collectively, the “Transferring Companies”) from Frontier to Northwest Fiber; and (2) assign certain long distance customer relationships from Frontier Communications of America, Inc. (“Frontier America”) and Frontier Communications Online and Long Distance Inc. (“Frontier LD”) to Northwest Fiber. The transaction represents the sale to Northwest Fiber of Frontier’s entire operations across four states—Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington (collectively, the “Territory”).
    [Show full text]
  • 2018/034 – 2018 Listing of State Assessees
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEN. GEORGE RUNNER (RET.) STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION First District, Lancaster PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT FIONA MA, CPA 450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA Second District, San Francisco PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0061 JEROME E. HORTON 1-916-274-3270 FAX 1-916-285-0132 Third District, Los Angeles County www.boe.ca.gov DIANE L. HARKEY Fourth District, Orange County July 25, 2018 BETTY T. YEE State Controller _______ DEAN R. KINNEE Executive Director No. 2018/034 TO COUNTY ASSESSORS AND COUNTY AUDITOR–CONTROLLERS: LISTING OF STATE ASSESSEES Enclosed are two listings of 680 companies whose property is subject to ad valorem tax assessment by the Board of Equalization (Board) for the lien date 2018. The first list is alphabetical by assessee name. The second list is numerical by assessee SBE number. These listings are current as of July 24, 2018. The State-Assessed Properties Division groups the assessees numerically by industry as follows: Industry SBE No. Gas, Electric, Water and Gas Transmission 100 - 199 Local Exchange Telephone Companies 200 - 399 Pipeline Companies 400 - 499 Railcar Maintenance Facilities 500 - 699 Railroad Companies 800 - 899 Electric Generation Facilities 1100 - 1199 Long Distance Telephone Companies 2000 - 2499 Wireless Telephone Companies 2500 - 3999 Long Distance Telephone Companies 7500 - 8999 Wireless Telephone Companies D001 - D999 Electric Generation Facilities E001 - E999 Long Distance Telephone Companies P001 - P999 Long Distance Telephone Companies Q001 - Q999 Long Distance Telephone Companies R001 - R999 The property of these companies is subject to state assessment pursuant to section 19 of Article XIII of the California Constitution and sections 721 and 721.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notice
    PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 445 12th St., S.W. Internet: http://www.fcc.gov Washington, D.C. 20554 TTY: 1-888-835-5322 Report Number: 15774 Date of Report: 03/24/2021 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-By-Site Action Below is a listing of applications that have been acted upon by the Commission. AF - Aeronautical and Fixed File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 0009104979 03/19/2021 KAI7 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc AM G 0009460053 03/19/2021 WRAW404 CAE Oxford Aviation Academy Phoenix CA G 0009371227 03/17/2021 WRMB754 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc NE G 0009374627 03/17/2021 WRMB755 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc NE G 0009374630 03/17/2021 WRMB756 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc NE G 0009374644 03/17/2021 WRMB757 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc NE G 0009447170 03/18/2021 SUN 'n FUN Fly-In, Inc. NE D 0009376660 03/17/2021 WQNK780 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc RM G 0009376662 03/17/2021 WQNM373 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc RM G 0009376663 03/17/2021 WQNK782 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc RM G 0009447153 03/19/2021 WQEV848 Textron Aviation, Inc. RM G 0009358046 03/17/2021 Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc WD W Page 1 AR - Aviation Radionavigation File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 0009315345 03/18/2021 WQOR529 The Boeing Company AM G AS - Aural Studio Transmitter Link File Number Action Date Call Sign Applicant Name Purpose Action 0009318964 03/18/2021 WQTJ537 EAGLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. MD G 0009318979 03/18/2021 WLG829 EAGLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
    Before the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of the Joint Application of Frontier Communications Corporation, Frontier Communications of America, Inc. (U5429C), Verizon California, Inc. (U1002C), Verizon Long Application 15-03-005 Distance LLC (U5732C), and Newco West Holdings LLC for Approval of Transfer of Control Over Verizon California, Inc. and Related Approval of Transfer of Assets and Certifications. Reply Testimony of LEE L. SELWYN on behalf of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission July 28, 2015 REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION REPLY TESTIMONY OF LEE L. SELWYN TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 Qualifications, background and experience 1 Assignment 4 Summary and Recommendation 5 II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSACTION AND SHAREHOLDER IMPACTS 13 A brief history of Verizon 15 A brief history of Frontier 20 The transaction 25 III. THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF “PROJECT GUAVA” – THE CA/TX/FL ACQUISITION 27 The transaction’s effect upon utility shareholders 27 The issuance of additional Frontier stock to finance the transaction. 31 Even under the worst case scenario that was considered by Frontier where none of the anticipated cost savings materialize, the transaction appears to have been reasonably priced on an Enterprise Value/EBITDA basis. 36 Frontier’s evaluation of the deal conservatively contemplates continued subscriber losses in the legacy wireline business. 37 Even under what Frontier considers to be its “worst case” conditions, the transaction appears to be at least fair, if not beneficial, to Frontier shareholders. 39 i ECONOMICS AND REDACTED – FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION TECHNOLOGY, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) IV.
    [Show full text]
  • FCC Access Tariff
    MCC Telephony, LLC FCC Tariff No. 1 3rd Revised Title Page Cancels 2nd Revised Title Page ACCESS SERVICES This tariff sets forth the service descriptions, regulations and rates applicable to the provision of telecommunications access service within the operating territories of MCC Telephony, LLC and its subsidiary companies: MCC Telephony of Florida, LLC MCC Telephony of Georgia, LLC MCC Telephony of Iowa, LLC MCC Telephony of the Mid-Atlantic, LLC MCC Telephony of the Midwest, LLC MCC Telephony of Minnesota, LLC MCC Telephony of Missouri, LLC MCC Telephony of the South, LLC MCC Telephony of the West, LLC Mediacom Telephony of Illinois, LLC __________________________ Original tariff effective May 18, 2010 Issued: July 15, 2014 Effective: July 16, 2014 Transmittal No. 8 Mr. Dan Templin, President One Mediacom Way, Mediacom Park, NY 10918 MCC Telephony, LLC FCC Tariff No. 1 10th Revised Page 1 Cancels 9th Revised Page 1 CHECK SHEET The Title Page and pages 1 – 91, inclusive, of this tariff are effective as of the date shown. The original and revised pages named below contain all changes from the original tariff that are in effect on the date shown Page Page Page Page Revision Revision Revision Revision No. No. No. No. Title 3rd Rev 26 3rd Rev 52 9th Rev * 78 3rd Rev 1 10th Rev * 27 2nd Rev 53 6th Rev 79 3rd Rev 2 2nd Rev 28 3rd Rev 54 8th Rev * 80 3rd Rev 3 4th Rev 29 3rd Rev 55 8th Rev * 81 3rd Rev 4 2nd Rev 30 3rd Rev 56 8th Rev * 82 3rd Rev 5 3rd Rev 31 2nd Rev 57 5th Rev 83 2nd Rev 6 3rd Rev 32 3rd Rev 58 5th Rev 84 2nd Rev 7 3rd Rev
    [Show full text]
  • Frontier TV Terms of Service
    Frontier.com FRONTIER TV TERMS OF SERVICE THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATE IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS REGARDING YOUR USE OF FRONTIER TV PROVIDED BY FRONTIER® AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS AND ITS AFFILIATES PROVIDING FRONTIER TV SERVICE1, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT ANY DISPUTE BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS RATHER THAN LAWSUITS, JURY TRIALS, OR CLASS ACTIONS, AS EXPLAINED MORE FULLY BELOW. This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which you the subscriber ("you," "your" or "Subscriber") agree to use Frontier TV (including Equipment and Programming) (“Frontier TV Service” or “Service”) and under which Frontier affiliates ("Frontier," "us " or "we") agree to provide Service to you. References to “Frontier,” “you,” and “us” include our respective subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, employees, predecessors in interest, successors, and assigns, as well as all authorized or unauthorized users or beneficiaries of Frontier TV Service under this or prior agreements between us or our predecessors in interest. THIS IS A CONTRACT. PLEASE READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY AS THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, AND OURS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE THE SERVICE AND CONTACT US IMMEDIATELY TO TERMINATE IT. 1. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT; AGREEMENT TERMS GENERALLY INCLUDED. This Agreement starts when you accept it. By accepting this Agreement, you and any other users of Frontier TV Service within your Premises are bound by its conditions. Your acceptance of this Agreement occurs upon the earlier of your use of or payment for the Service. This Agreement will end when you or we terminate this Agreement as permitted below.
    [Show full text]
  • FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC. SCHEDULE Cal. P.U.C. No. C-1 9260 E
    FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC. SCHEDULE Cal. P.U.C. No. C-1 9260 E. Stockton Blvd., Elk Grove, CA 95624 6th Revised Check Sheet 1 U-1002-C Canceling 5th Revised Check Sheet 1 FACILITIES FOR INTRASTATE ACCESS List of Effective Sheets Sheet A through 375 of the schedule are effective as of the date shown on each sheet. Original or revised sheets contain all material including changes from the original schedule that are in effect on the date hereof. Number of Number of Number of Revision Except Revision Except Revision Except Sheet No. As Indicated Sheet No. As Indicated Sheet No. As Indicated Check Sheet 1 6th Revised* 11 Original 46 Original Check Sheet 2 5th Revised* 12 Original 47 Original Check Sheet 3 3rd Revised* 13 Original 48 Original Check Sheet 4 Original 14 Original 49 Original Title Sheet 1 Original 15 Original 50 Original TOC 1 Original 16 Original 51 Original TOC 2 Original 17 Original 52 Original TOC 3 Original 18 Original 53 Original TOC 4 Original 19 Original 54 Original TOC 5 Original 20 Original 55 Original TOC 6 Original 21 Original 56 Original TOC 7 1st Revised 22 Original 57 Original TOC 8 Original 23 Original 58 Original TOC 9 Original 24 Original 59 Original TOC 10 Original 25 Original 60 1st Revised TOC 11 Original 26 Original 61 1st Revised TOC 12 Original 27 Original 61.1 Original TOC 13 Original 28 Original 61.2 Original TOC 14 Original 29 Original 61.3 Original TOC 15 Original 30 Original 61.4 Original TOC 16 Original 31 Original 62 Original TOC 17 Original 32 Original 63 Original TOC 18 Original 33 Original 64 Original TOC 19 Original 34 Original 65 Original TOC 20 Original 35 Original 66 Original 1 Original 36 Original 67 Original 2 Original 37 Original 68 Original 3 Original 38 Original 69 Original 4 Original 39 Original 70 Original 5 Original 40 Original 71 Original 6 Original 41 Original 72 Original 7 Original 42 Original 8 Original 43 Original 9 Original 44 Original 10 Original 45 Original * New or Revised Continued Advice Letter No.
    [Show full text]
  • Frontier's Network Is Engineered to Provide Maximum Capacity in Order to Handle Excess Traffic in the Event of Traffic Spikes Resulting from Emergency Situations
    Frontier’COMMUNICATIONS 9260E. Stockton Blvd Elk Grove, CA 95624 Filed Via Electronic Filing System June 18, 2019 Ms. Barbara Kunkel, Acting Executive Secretary Michigan Public Service Commission 7109 West Saginaw Highway Lansing, MI 48917 In the matter, on the Commission’s No. U-20357 Own Motion, on the Certification of ) Case Eligible Telecommunications Carriers ) Dear Ms. Kunkel: Attached is the FCC Form 481 on behalf of Frontier Communications of Michigan Inc. (‘Frontier”) for Study Area Code (SAC) 310682 that was filed with the Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) on June 14, 2019 in compliance with 47 CFR § 54.313 and 47 CFR § 54.422’. Section 54.313 applies to an eligible telecommunications carrier (“ETC”) receiving high-cost federal USE support. Section 54.422 applies to ETCs receiving low-income support. Both sections require the ETC to file the annual report with the Universal Service Administrative Company. Beginning with the filing due in 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) made changes to the requirements. The FCC no longer requires that high-cost recipients file information regarding network outages; unfulfilled requests; the number of complaints received by an ETC per 1,000 subscribers for voice and broadband services; and pricing for voice and broadband services. The FCC Form 481 no longer includes certifications for high-cost recipients regarding service quality standards and consumer protection rules. Finally, the FCC centralized filing of the FCC Form 481 such that one filing is made with the Universal Service2Administrative Company (“USAC”) and ETCs no longer file duplicate copies of the FCC Form with the FCC. Division, this In compliance with the letter dated June 3, 2019 from the Director, Telecommunications filing also includes a certification of compliance with Service Quality Standards and Consumer Protection Rules (Formerly Line 500 on the FCC Form 481) please refer to Attachment “A”.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\CA\2016\URF Review\LLS Direct 03-15-16
    Before the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Order Instituting Investigation into the State of Competition Among Telecommunications Providers in California, and to Consider and Investigation 15-11-007 Resolve Questions raised in the Limited Rehearing of Decision 08-09-042. Direct Testimony of LEE L. SELWYN on behalf of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission March 15, 2016 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LEE L. SELWYN TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Qualifications, background and experience 1 Assignment 4 A NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY FRAMEWORK 6 Introduction and Background 6 Assessing the extent and effectiveness of competition – the Structure-Conduct- Performance (“S-C-P”) paradigm 9 Structure analysis 15 Conduct analysis 16 Performance analysis 18 Applying the S-C-P paradigm to current telecommunications market conditions in California 18 Analysis principles relating to Structure 19 Analysis principles relating to Conduct 20 Analysis principles relating to Performance 22 Structure 22 (1) Multiple providers should each be capable of achieving minimum efficient scale in order for the market to be considered as capable of supporting effective competition. 22 i ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) (2) Market share, concentration, and market power of infrastructure-based markets must be assessed only with respect to the specific geographic areas being served by each incumbent. 31 (3) The number and the relative size and strength of competing firms must be sufficient to engender actual price competition. 35 (4) The relative positions of dominant firms may change over time without necessarily resulting in a material change in the level of market concentration. 44 (5) Putatively competing services may not offer fully equivalent functionality in all respects.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\CA\2015\TWC-Charter\LLS Report\FINAL\Selwyn Reply Testimony A-15-07-009 REDACTED 1-15-16Y.Wpd
    Before the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In the matter of Joint Application of Charter Communi- cations, Inc.; Charter Fiberlink CACCO, LLC (U6878C); Time Warner Cable Inc.; Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC (U6874C); Advance/ Newhouse Partnership; Bright House Networks, LLC; and Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC (U6955C) Pursuant to California Public Application 15-07-009 Utilities Code Section 854 for Expedited Approval of the Transfer of Control of both Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC (U6874C) and Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC (U6955C) to Charter Communications, Inc., and for Expedited Approval of a pro forma transfer of control of Charter Fiberlink CA-CCO, LLC (U6878C). Reply Testimony of LEE L. SELWYN on behalf of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission January 15, 2016 REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION REPLY TESTIMONY OF LEE L. SELWYN TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 Qualifications, background and experience 1 Assignment 4 Summary and Recommendation 5 II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSACTION AND SHAREHOLDER AND CUSTOMER IMPACTS 12 The Transaction 12 The incurrence of additional debt to finance the transaction will result in a more highly leveraged post-merger entity. 13 The increased debt service payment obligations to which New Charter will be subject may actually exceed the net increase in annual Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA) that the Joint Applicants attribute to the transaction. 19 One component of the increase in EBITDA that the Joint Applicants anticipate may be the result of post-merger price increases for services that confront little or no effective competition.
    [Show full text]